How to create non-abrahamic monotheistic religions?Anonymous06/24/17(Sat)20:59:22No.53990655

How to create a monotheistic religion that isn't a rehashed version of chrisrianism (with a few jewish elements)?I've seen a few fa/tg/uys saying that (fantasy) religions with a single god are the best but I've yet to see one that isn't some abrahamic rehash or dragon crystal jesus.

Do you have any good ideas or approachs to a single-god religion that are very different from the three big religions?

>>53990655Just go with the flow.Kavara the grand serpent sang the world into existence but failed a few verses causing demons to exist. Kavara still sings but slowly so that life may grow.One day you will die and be re-sung but eventually Kavara will fail your tune and you shall become a demon.

You could think about having a single deity that is very different to the Abrahamic ones. Doesn't really demand shit, doesn't punish, there's no Hell or need for salvation. Maybe there's reincarnation. Maybe the deity is pantheistic. Maybe the deity isn't even perfect - not omniscient or omnipotent.

>>53990735Now we flesh it out.What does Kavara look like?Majority black scales with every 3rd ring being a rainbow.Why did he sing?He was alone and wanted to meet someone new.What are the demons like?Demon is a catch-all term for monsters.There are normal monsters like Bugbears and goblins and then there are some fucked up beings like the Anuo that drain life in a desperate attempt to steal that beings song.

The Weaver works her loom without thought. Through each strand the universe forms, the events of life play out as she thoughtlessly creates her tapestry. The full picture can never be known, even the Weaver doesn't know where each thread leads. We can only hope through prayer and deeds to guide her hands to a good ending for us all.

>>53990655All the Abrahamic religions start with the premise that God is supremely powerful, and usually have the premise that God is Good with a capital G.

You could alter either or both of those concepts. Maybe you just have one creator-God, but one who is not unlimited and cannot fully control his creation. Maybe you have one that is spiteful, or stupid, or acts randomly. Perhaps he can create anything, but can't uncreate anything, leading to him being very careful with what he makes because it's gotten out of control before and there is no flood this time around to clean up the mess.

Here's a thought for you; your monotheistic God cannot kill anyone directly. Maybe you even go further and he can't supernaturally aid anyone directly in the effort of killing another living being. Work from there as to how it would be different from an Abrahamic god.

>>53990837A little bit. It's been a while but IIRC: The Vaiar (archangels, essentially) sang the world into existence, but Melkor sang off beat to be a dick and ruined everything forever. Eventually they'll sing a new song without Melkor ruining everything for everyone.

I've always liked the idea of making the prime God evil, or at the very least a bit of a selfish prick.

Everyone in the world performs a yearly act of sacrifice, small communities just give up some animals or grain. Rich merchants are supposed to give up gold and jewels. Royalty are supposed to commission statues, build and then burn wooden palaces, or have their best 200 men petrified into statues and then smashed; given to the dark God as an army.

This God could also be the king or father of the monsters in the world, which is why monsters often have riches and wealth. Taking wealth from these monsters is really just taking back the sacrificed and plundered riches from the mortal folk back from the evil God. Maybe the players characters could aspire to become strong enough to scale up into heaven and defeat the evil God once and for all to put a stop his his reign of tyranny, or maybe just take it for themselves.

I'm sure some people would call this a fedora tipper style religion, but I think it's pretty unique and kind of fun.

>>53990816>What does Kavara look like?>HeYou've got a serpent creating monsters. You're pretty close to having an Echidna as your supreme god you may as well just go for it. As a bonus your associating the god with the female and motherhood rather than the male and fatherhood like Yahweh is.

Like all good original things, I shall take something and then just do the opposit and then expand on it.

>Monotheism is based on loving Sky-Father.>Opposite of that would be spiteful Earth-mother.>The Earth-Mother is worshiped not out of compassion or love, but out of fear and contempt. >Seen as the source of all things evil and enemy of all things good, She is constantly at work undoing the greatness of man. >Heated storms are her fury, and icy blizzards her disdain. Nature is cruel and life is a struggle to outpace it.>Cowards and fools pray for Her wrath to skip them over, or seek to direct Her wrath at their enemies, but she hates them all just the same. >Brave and good men defy Her openly, and seek to work against her malevolence. >At first man built shelter, to hide themselves from Her, but as the ages went by man grew stronger and fought back.>Farms are a cut against Her body, the taming of animals is a defience against Her design. >She selfishly hides her riches deep inside Herself, but we tore them away from her grasp. >Cities are our shrines that stand against her, even though she tried to cripple us with plauge and disease. >Man rejoiced at the discovery of other worlds. For one day we could finally abandon our abusive Mother to the cold depths of the void.

>>53992016It's basically like catholicism but more hardcore. They have beings that are basically angels, "sparks" of Ahura Mazda who represent different facets of him AND powerful entities that you're allowed to worship (like Mithra) and would basically be considered lesser gods.

>>53990655I'm thinking of something like a mix of Zeus, Odin, and Kratos, where the strongest dude ever (barring maybe something like an apocalypse beast or the will of magic itself or some other overpowered bullshit) travels the world as a nobody bum in disguise, partaking of everything normal people do but also soloing encounters from rats in a basement to epic-level lich armies for reasons. The clergy is at its core a glorified fan club/conspiracy theory ring that piece together that a lot of the world legends where one dude curbstomps all the shit describe him in very similar ways, and come to the accidentally correct conclusion that there's some immortal guy that's doing badass shit all over the world.

>>53992117I am fairly certain that other christian denominations believe that the laws of nature can be broken by miracles instead of assuming that such miracles are merely the same laws at work which only seem to be broken due to our incomplete understanding of the laws.

@OP the Great Eagle laid an egg, which fell down and from the shattered shell the earth was formed, and from the Eagle's tears was born the seas, and the heavens from the feathers the Eagle ripped off itself in its melancholy. At first, the eagle was really sad it's only egg had broken, but soon it noticed that the seas started to fill with fish, the earth filled with plants and animals and birds made the sky their home, so the Eagle was no longer lonely and sad.

>>53993014You don't worship or revere Angels, they are the servants of God and His messengers, soldiers and choir. Last time an Angel got puffed up on the belief they had a right to worshiped you got Lucifer and a good chunk of the celestial choir cast out of Heaven and thrown howling down to Hell.

>>53990655here's some ideas:Make the deity non-anthropomorphic, like a tree or a rock or somethingMake the deity 'lesser' than mortals, as if it was trying (and potentially succeeded) in making something greater than itselfMake the deity nonlawful, or otherwise with little demands or judgments on its followersHave the deity come into existence AFTER its followers, as their creationHave the deity be in decline, or ascension, or otherwise imperfect and dynamic

>>53991983>Man rejoiced at the discovery of other worlds. For one day we could finally abandon our abusive Mother to the cold depths of the void....only to find the other worlds' gods are equally - if not more - dickish

>>53994589>the jew god is not opposed by some kind of evil demigod despite being omnipotent>no wacky explanation about how Jesus changed the law without actually changing it.>not "monotheistic" god made up of three parts.Judaism is the most self-consistent of the three.

>>53994617>the jew god is not opposed by some kind of evil demigod despite being omnipotentSatan is not a Demigod. Infact, Humans are supreme creation so he cant force us to do anything unless we let him to influence us (voluntarily or by deception). He can only deceive, hence the name Diabolos.>no wacky explanation about how Jesus changed the law without actually changing it.He didnt changed laws and prophecies, he fulfilled it.>not "monotheistic" god made up of three parts.>Implying Almighty God that transcends everything can be understandableIf you can understand "God", then he is not God anymore

>>53994692>He didnt changed laws and prophecies, he fulfilled it.It's only what you believes, and he still acted against some things of the Old Testament.Starting from the principe it's right because he is god is a self-circular argument.

Humankind is at war with God.Humans are simply more Divine than God, More empathetic, more caring, more loving, more creative, more proactive, more sheltering, more protective. Everything God is, we do better and more of it. For every failing we have, we make up for it a thousand-fold.

>>53995047>Abrahamic answer is free will mixed to "god has mysterious ways"Actually, its just solely free will.And Evil here is regarded to be just an absence of Good, not opposite of it.Hate is lacks of loveWrath is lacks of patience and so on and so forth.

>>53990735What happens when a demon dies? Do they get re-sung, hopefully correctly this time? Could they potentially be "tuned up" without dying? Do they, in fact, _have to_ be tuned up while alive to prevent being reincarnated as a demon?

Does all this only apply to the material things or does everything, even concepts, have their song? Does every concept potentially have a "harmonious" version?

Do demons prefer their "discorded" status, or would they rather be cured (whether that's possible or not)? What's their level of malevolence - just crazy, mischievous, nasty, homicidal, genocidal, omnicidal? Are they persons or howling madness?

For my most recent game the one true faith of the continent the PCs were located at was the worship of Sariyas. Who was basically supersayian-jezeus.The religion was all about the glorification of humanity, the human form and great achivements. I could dig up what I wrote on it (it's not a lot, not even a full page) after breakfast if anyone wants.

It has been already touched upon in this thread, but I think the biggest question is how strict do you want to be with the whole concept of "monoteism". Because frankly, what we call "monotheism" is rarely straight-forward one-god idea. Basically only Judaism and arguably the old, now-non-existent Atenism of Middle Kingdom Egypt can be pretty unarguably considered pure monotheism.Most of the other religions we consider monotheistic are a little more complex than that.Christianity worships the Trinity, and Catholicism even adds Saints to the mix.Gnosis is sometimes considered to be monotheistic (or even a Christian heresy) with it's only one Godhead, but then it also contains creatures such as Sophia Pistis, Zoe and the Beast, which are arguably divine creatures themselves.Tengrism has a world full of spirits and smaller divine beings who could be considered gods (and in some forms are).Zoroastrianism is dualistic.Buddhism does not even have a god in it's stricter forms, and it often transforms into versions that worship the Boddhisatwa's in a manner very similar to Christian Saints.

On the other hand, Hindu is often described as a traditional example of polytheism despite the fact Brahma/Atman of the Vedantic tradition is actually more a single, absolute god than arguably even Christian God really is.

So in reality, the very idea of "monotheism" is rather imprecise, heuristic tool we use quite arbitrarily.

So, just be creative and study real-world religions. That is the only good way to go around it.

>>53995640>basically only JudaismModern Judaism. Jewish historians have discovered evidence that what would be considered ancient Jews worshiped a pantheon with Jehovah as a chieftain storm deity similar to other storm gods of the Levant region.

>>53995640>Christianity worships the Trinity, and Catholicism even adds Saints to the mix.Three are One. The 'Trinity' isn't worshiped as separate entities, they are each a part of a singular being.>and Catholicism even adds Saints to the mix.You straight up don't understand the role of saints in Catholic theology. We don't worship the saints, we simply beseech them to act on our behalf with God. They aren't given worship, only shown respect as particularly worthy servants of Christ.

Saying they are gods is like saying a senator is the constitution of the United States.

>>53994731>It's only what you believes, and he still acted against some things of the Old Testament.The God of the Old Testament and the God of the New are different gods anywayGod of War and Revenge against God of Peace and Love

>>53995671Well, yeah, I guess you are talking about Canaanites tradition, which Judaism seems to be a splinter/evolution off. But if we want to be terminologically clear, those were not Judaists: those were just Semites. Same ethnic group, similar language, but the religion was different and we only speak about Judaism once the separation of Elohim from the rest of the Canaanite pantheon happened.

Fun fact though, it's exactly the old rooting in the Canaanite pantheon that is still "accidentally" captured in the story of Lucifer's fall, and in fact the whole tradition of associating the Devil's name with Morning Star. It's an old Canaanite myth predating old testament by about five hundred years, give or take. And it was apparently still common knowledge around the times of Isaiah, too.

>>53995690No offense, but religious people are the absolute worst judges of their own religion on a more global and academic level. Of course you might scream and yell about how "it's totally DIFFERENT" but it isn't, not to an external observer who is comparing your religion to others. Saints ARE worshiped, in the same way that say, Shinto worships Kami, and Trinity is separated and then conglomerated according to immediate theological need. I understand why you don't admit that and why you chose a different terminology for yourself, but from the perspective of actual religionistics, no. You are wrong.

>>53995742>Saints ARE worshipedwhen you are asking someone to pray for you, or compliment him, does that mean worship?>Trinity is separated and then conglomerated according to immediate theological needwhat does that even supposed to mean?

>>53995799Call me when they specifically ask him for help in their prayers, attribute post-mortem miracles to him, perform sacrifices to him, and actually state that he is capable of directly influencing events in physical world. I'm not just being ironic, I actually can see that happening sometime in future.

>>53995819>when you are asking someone to pray for you, or compliment him, does that mean worship?If you are praying to him, yes. If you attribute him with powers that can influence your existence, and preform religious rituals including sacrifice to that being, yes. That is worship. And you are insanely, INSANELY delusional if you want to claim that is not happening among the Catholics in mass, especially in the past. Fun fact, around 14th century, the Cult of Saint Mary was actually bigger and more popular than the actual cult of Jesus Christ for a good while.

Look, you can make any distinctions you need to maintain the consistency of your belief. I seriously don't have a problem with that. I completely understand that a Catholic will maintain a strict distinction between a Saint and God, just as he will maintain claim to monotheism because those are just deeply coded into the belief system and it's a way to deal with certain inconsistencies or unclarities.

And that is fine.

But there IS a different perspective and that is an academic point. Just like Christianity will insist on immortality of a soul, but Medicine and Psychology will not agree, Christians will insist on being monotheistic, but actual studies of Religionistics won't. You'll just have to learn to deal with it.

>>53991659>and ruined everything foreverAn uneducated interpretation. Ilúvatar scholds Melkor for thinking that he can screw up His plans right after the song is finished.

>Then Ilúvatar spoke, and he said: 'Mighty are the Ainur, and mightiest among them is Melkor; but that he may know, and all the Ainur, that I am Ilúvatar, those things that ye have sung, I will show them forth, that ye may see what ye have done. And thou, Melkor, shalt see that no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me, nor can any alter the music in my despite. For he that attempteth this shall prove but mine instrument in the devising of things more wonderful, which he himself hath not imagined.'

>>53995889>If you are praying to him, yes.Nobody is """praying""" to saints, we are asking them to pray for us. HUmans are immortal, so they are still alive and reside in heaven. thats the basic concept. Its like asking a friend to pray for us.>and preform religious rituals including sacrifice to that beingLiterally what? We are sacrificing to God only and God sacrifices himself to us. "Yours from You, we sacrifice to You for Everyone and Everything" is the rough translation of the liturgical text. but you'll get the point.>And you are insanely, INSANELY delusional if you want to claim that is not happening among the Catholics in mass, especially in the past.I dont care what happens in catholic church>Fun fact, around 14th century, the Cult of Saint Mary was actually bigger and more popular than the actual cult of Jesus Christ for a good while. [citatation needed]>But there IS a different perspective and that is an academic point. Academic point says that Christianity is monotheistic and it has been so throughout centuries. Now if some modern """scientist""" disagrees, then its a different problem. Human has Soul, Body and Rational mind, that together form a human being, yet they are not separate humans forming some mutant. this is a rough comparison. >Just like Christianity will insist on immortality of a soul, but Medicine and Psychology will not agreeBecause medicine is about body and material, not about soul and transcendental plain, why should it care about soul anyways?

>>53995889Or you could learn to deal with being wrong and accept that there is a difference between holding someone up as a good example to follow and outright worship.

I am Catholic, I have been a practicing Catholic for 30 years. At no point have we ever sacrificed anything to a saint nor have we ever prayed to a saint or expected direct intervention in any way from a saint.

They are held up as examples to follow, some of them imbued with some measure of authority from God to perform supernatural feats but only at the allowance of God.

I honestly don't understand where the confusion comes from in this. It's like saying that Americans are ancestor worshipers because Thanksgiving day feast.

>>53995940>we are asking them to pray for usYeah, because you know, saying "Archangel Michael, give me strength" doesn't at all mean that your asking him for a favour but that you want him to bring the good word to the Big G who despite being omniscient apparently needs help with the bookkeeping.

>>53995940>Nobody is """praying""" to saints, we are asking them to pray for us.See, this is why you don't treat devout believers as authorities on religion, because they will eventually end up flat out lying if it's is necessary to maintain their own conceptual framework. Because unavoidably, when it comes to faith, truth of dogma has to be more important and valid than even empirical evidence. Because you are wrong about this.

>[citatation needed]There are literally hundreds of books on the subject of Medieval Cult of Virgin Mary. Pick any you want. Luigi Gambero is a good interaction. Or just google the damn thing.

>Academic point says that Christianity is monotheistic and it has been so throughout centuries.That is A) provably not true (just fucking open Eliade or something) and B) even those who unproblematically categorize it as monotheistic religion will immediately add "but the idea of monotheism itself is merely heuristic and extremely arbitrary". Just like I did.

>why should it care about soul anyways?You do realize that "psychology" literally means "the knowledge of soul"? This is some truly clueless fucking question.

>>53995950>Or you could learn to deal with being wrongI'm wrong from a perspective of Catholicism. Ironically enough not even wrong from the perspective of Christianity, as there are dozens of Christian denominations that actually fucking make the same claim, often as a reason for their departure from Christianity.

More importantly though, I'm not wrong form the academic perspective: that is the perspective that transcends individual specifics of individual cults or religious movements.

>At no point have we ever sacrificed anything to a saintMillions of Christians did and still do. Candles being easily the most common sacrifice, but hardly the only one. If you deny this, you simply deny history.

>I honestly don't understand where the confusion comes Because you literally cannot see outside of your own dogma.

>>53995725>>53995737They're only twins in the very same zurvanism you mention, and maybe in some flawed folk zoroastrianism beliefs. Never in orthodox zoroastrian belief, that's ultra-heretic.

The dualism meme is based on western misconceptions and people who confuses Manicheans and Zoroastrians. Zoroastriansim has big dualist features, but not in the regard of being monotheistic or not. In this context, dualism doesn't mean "two gods" since the Angra Mainyu (Ahriman) is no god but a evil spirit and is a son of Ahura Mazda. The twin of the Ahriman is the Spenta Mainyu, one of Ahura Mazda's sparks. Zoroastrianism is way more complex than it's fantasy counterparts, it can be summarized as "it's just dualism dude".

>>53996029>Yeah, because you know, saying "Archangel Michael, give me strength"give me a full prayer commissioned by an official church and approved by an ecclesiarchy.>>53996031>See, this is why you don't treat devout believers as authorities on religion, because they will eventually end up flat out lying if it's is necessary to maintain their own conceptual framework. Because unavoidably, when it comes to faith, truth of dogma has to be more important and valid than even empirical evidence. >I have no arguments about this, so I will call you a liar and say that "you are wrong about this."

>There are literally hundreds of booksusing a weasel words I see....

>A) provably not true (just fucking open Eliade or something) and sure, as you say (also, a protip: using an insult in conversation will make you look degenerate)>B) even those who unproblematically categorize it as monotheistic religion will immediately add "but the idea of monotheism itself is merely heuristic and extremely arbitrary". >Just like I did. You have an big impression on yourself, m8

>You do realize that "psychology" literally means "the knowledge of soul"? This is some truly clueless fucking question.Psychology now has to do something with a medicine? Its a completely different discipline. Medicine and biology plays part in it, but it is a separate. Also, see a protip up there.

>>53996089>I have no arguments about this, so I will call you a liar and say that "you are wrong about this."Says the person who makes a post purely out of "NO U" and complains about "bad words" and actual ad hominems?Like: >You have an big impression on yourself, m8This is the best you can put together.Here is a suggestion: Get of your fat lazy ass and walk down the nearest university. Ask for direction to the department of religionistics. And go ask them.

>Psychology now has to do something with a medicine?Uh, psychology is part of medicine. Always have been. There is no clear separation: it's a subdiscipline of medicine, that is just a fucking fact too.

What the fuck is going on here? What is your fucking point? This is laughable.

To you and this moron >>53996175Let's get back to the point: the distinction that Catholicism does between worship (hyperdulia) and "mere" veneration (dulia or latria) IS arbitrary to anyone outsideo of fucking Catholicism. Even the fucking Protestants point out that the distinction is in word only and functionally does the fucking same. And you should BE FUCKING AWARE of that. It's fine that you chose to adhere to the Catholic tradition. But you are being fucking retarded if you can't even acknowledge that the validity of your terminology LITERALLY ENDS with your own faith. Even people worshiping the same fucking GOD disagree with you. Much less people who are trying to find a possition outside of this particular faith entirely.

Just fucking understand that you see that as a distinction literally because that is written in the Catholic DOGMA and for absolutely no reason. The distinction is not relevant to people who do not see the believe the same cannon as you do. Literally just a different commentary on BIBLE, clearly can contradict your belief.

And that really is where the discussion ends. Validity of distinction you draw ends where your particular faith ends. That is all.

>>53996216>since atenism is clearly henotheisticI really like how you just jump on the occasion to flaunt that new word that you had learned, but not really. And the distinction between henotheism and monotheism itself is even more fucking arbitrary and unclear than the distinction between monotheism and polytheism. Hell, Elohim is a henotheistic god: Henotheism is at best a stage of transformation from polytheism to monotheism and it's frankly incredibly poorly concieved and defined, which is why religionistics don't actually use it very much. Hence it's obscurity, and hence your need to flaunt it.

You are right that I completely forgotten that Islam exists, and that is silly of me. And you are right that it would be a better example than Atenism.

I'm sorry Catholics, but you are literal idol worshipers. "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image." And "No other gods before me" Literally two of the big ten and you break them daily. I'm sorry you have to learn this on 4chan of all places, but I pray that God will forgive you if you repent.

>>53996212Nice, so you cant survive without insulting someone, nice to reveal your face.>Says the person who makes a post purely out of "NO U" and complains about "bad words" and actual ad hominems?Ok, now you have degraded to "carl the cuck". >Here is a suggestion: Get of your fat lazy ass and walk down the nearest university. Ask for direction to the department of religionistics. And go ask them. I study bible (mostly tanakh) and Hebrew in university, you imbecile. And religionistics isn't even an academic discipline, its called "religion/religious studies">Uh, psychology is part of medicine. Always have beenNo, in fact in old times it was considered to be a pseudoscience by illiterates like you.>Let's get back to the point: the distinction that Catholicism does between worship (hyperdulia) and "mere" veneration (dulia or latria) IS arbitrary to anyone outsideo of fucking Catholicism. Even the fucking Protestants point out that the distinction is in word only and functionally does the fucking same. And you should BE FUCKING AWARE of that. >different terms actually have same meaning.The problem, that your retarded language cant find a difference between terms in other language, doesn't mean that there are none.Just like in my language there are two distinct terms for deaths, that are translated same way in english, but one means "death as death, annihilation" and "death as transformation, transcedence">Just fucking understand that you see that as a distinction literally because that is written in the Catholic DOGMA and for absolutely no reason. The distinction is not relevant to people who do not see the believe the same cannon as you do. Literally just a different commentary on BIBLE, clearly can contradict your belief. first of all, why should I care about catholic dogmas, I am not even catholic, but you cannot even provide single based argument, that veneration is same as worshiping. Do you realize how retarded it sounds? Its like [tbc]

>>53994617>how Jesus changed the law without actually changing it.That whole thing is most likely derived from way back when Christianity was still a sect within the Jewish religion which also allowed non-Jews to join, and there were conflicting opinions on wether non-Jewish Christians had to follow Jewish law or if just following the laws laid down by Jesus was enough. The whole thing about the old laws still being in place but there also being this new fancy laws that change the old laws without actually changing them is likely to mean: "If you're a Jewish follower of Christ you still need to get circumsised and you can't work during the shabbat. If you didn't do those things before, you don't have to start doing them now."

>>53996241I mean, okay, you're very smart and all but I won't consider it monotheism when your religion allows the worship of other gods. It may be a step towards monotheism, but this very fact precisely prevents it from being monotheistic. You can say you're to in the second floor if you're still on the stairs.

>the distinction that Catholicism does between worship (hyperdulia) and "mere" veneration (dulia or latria) IS arbitrary to anyone outsideo of fucking Catholicism.Two different words with notably different meanings have only arbitrary differences outside of a particular religious branch. No. that's not how words work.

>Even the fucking Protestants point out that the distinction is in word only and functionally does the fucking sameReally? Because half my family are Baptists and they seemed to understand the distinction easily. Again, ancestor worshiping Americans and worship at the Lincoln temple.

>But you are being fucking retarded if you can't even acknowledge that the validity of your terminology LITERALLY ENDS with your own faithReally? I mean I'm using English and the terminology seems to be at minimum as wide spread as other English speakers.

>Even people worshiping the same fucking GOD disagree with you.Not all apparently. Also more than one person is allowed to be wrong at once.

>Just fucking understand that you see that as a distinction literally because that is written in the Catholic DOGMA and for absolutely no reason.Other than to prevent the outright worship of saints. I honestly don't know how you failed to spot that. I mean, to play devils advocate for a moment, if I was you I would have at least tried to spin it as Catholic hypocrisy.

>Literally just a different commentary on BIBLE, clearly can contradict your belief.Yes. This is called interpretation.

>And that really is where the discussion endsThat's not for you to decide.

>>53996293saying that "asking someone to help" is like "worshipping someone like God". (though christianity DOES say that humans are made in image and likeness of God. you can see psalm 82:6)I dont care how you view it, I dont care if you tip fedora or worship yourself. But stop showing down in Christianity what there is not.

>And that really is where the discussion ends. Validity of distinction you draw ends where your particular faith ends. That is all.Exactly. where your faith ends. your entire arguments have been just "are you kidding me", "b-but, y gender studies teacher said so". pathethicbye. Learn how to conduct an academic conversation before talking on high matters

>>53996293>Nice, so you cant survive without insulting someone, nice to reveal your face.Does not your religion frown down on hypocrisy? Did you actually read your previous post? Or the following lines of this very post?

This is boring. Make an actual point or I'm just going to ignore you.>I study bible (mostly tanakh) and Hebrew in university, you imbecile.And I don't give a fuck. Also, speaking of the inability to move away from insults... again, I don't actually mind. This is 4chan, insulting means nothing and I would completely screen it out if it wasn't you who just complaint about how I'm using them. It's just painfully hypocritical of you.

>And religionistics isn't even an academic discipline, its called "religion/religious studies"Fair enough. You are right. Religionistics is a term used in most of Eastern Europe where I come from. Proper english term is Religious Studies. I tend to consistently forget that. Sorry about that. Hardly changes the point though.

>No, in fact in old times it was considered to be a pseudoscience by illiterates like you.Uh... it has never been considered science at all until very recently when experimental psychology came into prominence. Also it's status as a science has nothing to do with it's status as a part of medicine. But sure, just use it as a bad excuse to scream more insults that you find so inexcusable in this discussion...

>The problem, that your retarded language cant find a difference between terms in other languageThis is not a problem of language, it's a problem of meaning. Validity of a term, not of the particular word. Catholics and Christians are divided on this problem regardless of their native language, for an example. The question is "is the distinction useful to enough people to be broadly recognized". And clearly the distinction between veneration and worship is not useful enough even for Christianity on whole to agree on.

>>53996400Basically. It was quite humourous; each of the Valar set out to create their own fraction of Illuvatar's vision and Melkor would try to fuck it up, only aiding in creation. One Valar would make rain and Melkor would try to freeze it out of spite and he'd just create snow, then throw a tantrum over how no one was upset about it.

>>53996293>first of all, why should I care about catholic dogmas,Yet you systematically insist on a distinction that is pretty much unique to Catholicism and it's variants. Again, entirety of Protestantism and it's denominations actually consider people who draw such line as flat out heretics. The point here being that it's not actually an universally accepted distinction. And that is where the discussion really ends. You don't have the final word on this: academia and different denominations of your own faith contradict it. At absolute best, as I said in my first post that offended your delicate religious sensibilities (or more likely your actual poor self-esteem): it's tenatious and not clear and there is no final authority beyond "it's highly debatable and complex matter".

>that veneration is same as worshiping.Except for the common useage of the word "worship". >saying that "asking someone to help" is like "worshipping someone like God"If you do it through idol-building, religious rituals and sacrificies, if you attribute the object of your interest with divine qualities and miraculous powers: that is worship. Peculiar justifications aren't important. We see Buddhism as religion even though if you explore Buddha's own teachings and some specific schools of Buddhism, they flat out deny existence of a diety. Still: On pragmatic level, they worship Buddha, and Boddhisatwa's through very much the same rituals and idol-building as Catholics worship Saints.

If we want to understand religion, we need to look at it as a PATTERN OF BEHAVIOR, rather than get bogged down in every single individiual post-hoc rationalization. And the pattern of behavior of Catholics and their denomintions towards saints is just exactly the fucking same as any other worship of lesser dieties in the world in many ways.

>Learn how to conduct an academic conversation before talking on high mattersAre you fucking serious with this shit?

Gen 1:26–28And God said: 'Let us make man in our image, after our likenesss; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.' And God created man in His image, in the image of God He created him, male and female created He them. And God blessed them; and God said to them: 'Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that creepeth upon the earth.'

Gen 5:1–3This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made He him. Male and female created He them, and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created. And Adam lived a hundred and thirty years, and begot a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth.

Gen 9:6One who spills the blood of man, through/by man, his blood will be spilled, for in God's image He made man.

>>53996323>Two different words with notably different meaningsNot recoginized within Christianity on the whole, much less within academia.

>Again, ancestor worshiping Americans and worship at the Lincoln temple.Not quite yet, but yeah. The problem of american state cult rapidly closing to being a religious institution is actually fairly well known. And yes, it draws on very similar principles, it's hardly surprising that the two are similar.

>I mean I'm using English and the terminology seems to be at minimum as wide spread as other English speakers.Among Catholics, yes. Other perspectives are aware of the distinction you people draw, but that does not mean they consider it valid.

>Also more than one person is allowed to be wrong at once.And we are at the very root of the problem. You declare yourself right BECAUSE YOU ARE CATHOLIC. And that is not a valid line of argumentation.

>Other than to prevent the outright worship of saints.Actually, it is because you want to maintain the tradition and custom of worship of Saints, but at the same time you don't want to change the dogma declaring the religion monotheist, because that is also a matter of old tradition.

That is all. It's just a way to solve internal inconsistency within your own belief. And it's a fair way to do it. I don't have a single problem with the idea that Catholics worship saints. I don't have a problem with them drawing a line between worship and veneration for their own internal purposes.

The ONLY problem I have is when somebody like you comes out and declares everybody else wrong and every other actual more pragmatic and universal conceptualization WRONG because "I'm a catholic and things are as I say by divine provenience". That attitude has no fucking place in public discussion, much less academic one.

YOU can distinguish yourself between the two ideas, but you can't expect everyone else to confirm to it. It's your private distinction, not an academically relevant one.

>>53993660>You guys worship the same GodUnless you're one of those Christians who believes Muhammad is the Anti-Christ predicted in the Book of Revelations and Muslims have been duped into worshipping Satan.I unironically believe this.

>>53996677>Peter's Church>Same as modern day Catholicism.Legit enough, but how you make the jump to "Church of Satan" is incredibly iffy, especially considering they have the same ideological foundation. Unless you're one of those Muslims who believes the Bible has been corrupted becasue the original (for which no manuscripts exist by coincidence) mentioned Muhammad.

>>53996748>Nevertheless ye shall die like menIt should be adam instead of man, but whateverour body dies, news flash:)>and fall like one of the princes.that prince is reference to Luciferwe fell like satan and became degenerate, also a news flash :)

>>53996824>Actually I believe myself right on this particular subject due to 30 years of personal experience.Entirely on the basis of personal, subjective preference.

>You believe you are right based on some variation of "what someone once told me".Dude, you are are literally just repeating words of religious authorities of past. You are exclusively just repeating the words somebody told you. And by the way, that is how most knowledge works. Except you decided that a certain authority is valid based purely on your own individual allegiance with that group.While I decide authorities based on comparisons of multiple different possible statements and applications of rationality and academic discourse standards.

It's really bizzare how you think "this is what I think because I'm a catholic for 30 years" is somehow superior to "This is what a massive collection of different authorities of many different religious or non-religious backgrounds ultimately agreed upon within the pretty sharp and demanding requirements and knowledge standards of the academic field".

That is just bizarre. I have a lot of respect for faith - I think a lot more than most - but you are pretty much an illustration of why people tend to look down upon your kind. Basically the fedora-wearing aggressive and dumb atheist stereotype except in reverse.

>>53991944>>53991787As a Spanish Catholic non practicioner, it depends, you have the South where they revere Saints and Mary like crazy, to the point of crying in the presence of their sculptures, flagelate themselves in Holy Week, etc and you have the North in where is more like superstition, you have a figure of a certain Saint to protect you from something specific, but that's it.

No matter what the system or setting, the DM is god. In RPGs, everything happens by the needs of the plot at the moment, the players' intervention, and DM fiat. The actual nature of the in-game god(s) only matter ifA) they intervene in mortal affairs by divinely empowered clerics/paladins/whateverB) the players can meet them in person by some means of extradimensional/metaphysical travelIf neither of those conditions are satisfied, then the nature of the god(s) are irrelevant. Whether the god is triune, modal, or something else entirely does not matter at all when the players are off killing orcs or fighting space pirates.

>>53996939>Really? Have I tried to convert you? Have I denounced you for your beliefs or once called you stupid?Not really, you just literally rejected massive library and entire fucking field of knowledge on the basis of "I'm a catholic for 30 years and that makes you all wrong".

And that is pretty damn stupid.

>The original point was you or someone very much like you claiming that Catholics worship saints.Actually, the original point was that the concept of monotheism is hardly an accurate and exact tool and that many religions common considered monotheistic actually show display of worship of multiple entitites - as illustrated on the example of Catholics having the institution of Saints, or Buddhism having their Boddhisattwa's. Which are entirely valid examples of where the whole "monotheism" idea might be... let's say innacurate or insufficient, as it tries to describe reality that might be a lot more complex than the definition of monotheism suggest it to be.

>I have decades of first-hand experience on the subjectYou don't have ANY experience with any kind of academic discourse. You yourself don't feel like veneration and worship are the same. NOBODY GIVES A FUCK about that though. To an external, more objective observer, that distinction is not really relevant. Really: END OF THE FUCKING DISCUSSION. Your particular subjective feeling does not matter. There are better, more universal and more relevant ways to judge this problem.

>Also despite all this veneration is still not the same thing as worship.TO. YOU.Except YOU don't matter. There is a guy living next door who just happens to be a protestant and his oppinion is going to EXACTLY the fucking opposite to you: based on 30 years of his experience, just like you. To him, it's exactly the same. That is why we can't consider either of you actually valid judges of this problem. We are going to establish a better way to judge these things than your personal faith.

>>53997040>the definitions and distinctions of veneration and worship have not changed.You might want to look that up, actually. The Oxford Dictionary gives the definition of venerate as 'deep respect or admiration', and worship as, in addition to religious rites in general, 'great reverence'; reverence in turn being defined as 'deep respect'.

I'm with the other anon on this one. The distinction is only relevant to Catholics who use it as a post hoc rationalization for their worship of saints.

>>53997021>DM writes at least basic plot structure (or situations in a sandbox game), players follow>If players stray from plot, DM (ideally) sets up alternate plot>DM decides which aspects of the setting are valid, assuming he doesn't make his own setting outright>DM (and players) houserule mechanics>DM can fiat in favor of or against players if plot or circumstances demand it>NPCs act according to plot contrivance and DM strategySounds pretty godlike to me. And the above is a DM's responsibilities and powers; what they do with that is up to them and the players.

>>53997059>Most of them are capable of making the distinction.Dude, acknowledging that you see the difference is not the same as accepting that difference as universally valid. Most protestants view the distinction as an insult to the god, a hypocritical attempt to justify barbaric notion of worshiping idols and priviledging people on the arrogant assumption that people can actually truly know God's intentions. Fuck me, you yourself defined venerated people as those you ask to prey for you because you believe their prayers will have exceptional impact, while according to Protestantism, there is hardly anything more arrogant than assuming that we can even understand what truly matters to God or that we can somehow influence his fucking judgement.

Also:As to the "definitions have not changed".Well, anthropology did not really change the definitions of Matriarchy and Patriarchy after they were identified as innacurate and unscientific. They just stopped viewing them as relevant. Some people (like some radical feminists) STILL cling to them, but the actual academic body with authority on this subject simply regards them as outdated and not to be used anymore.

And as for definition of Monotheism: first of all you are wrong. The definition HAS changed, I just redefined it by pointing out that nowdays, we know it's an arbitrary, historical line that has very little systematic application and should not be treated as literary. Just like we use the concept of Race: we still use it pretty much in the same sense that Gobineau established it, yet we already know it's (biologically speaking) utter bullshit. We just used it because A) it stuck, and B) it's treated as a common heuristic, not as something to be taken too literary and seriously.

>>53997077Nah, but judging how desperately you cling to most irrelevant assumptions to feel like you are in the right, I think you actually might be.

>>53997276>So you are literally changing the definitions of words to win an argument on a Mongolian basket weaving website.Well, technically it was not me: I just provided the new definition, as it has been established by the entirety of the field that I - unlike you - have access to. It's how definition of monotheism has been altered through the field of religious studies and their relative fields, including anthropology, cognitive and experimental psychology and psychology of religion, and also philosophy of religion and even sociology.

What I think isn't all that relevant. What the entirely of the academia studying this subject matter agrees upon - even if (as all academic agreements are) tentatiously, is what matters.

You could have actually figured out that I'm not talking subjectively and that I'm representing the general attitude of the entire fucking field from the "today, we know". It's not a pluralis majestatis, you know.

>>53995379>What happens when a demon dies? Do they get re-sung, hopefully correctly this time? They do get Re-sung but it's still up to chance with what you are.Like Hinduism with castes. You are re-sung as a plant or a dog or even just as a weaker demon.>Could they potentially be "tuned up" without dying? Do they, in fact, _have to_ be tuned up while alive to prevent being reincarnated as a demon?I don't get this one. Please elaborate.>Does all this only apply to the material things or does everything, even concepts, have their song? Does every concept potentially have a "harmonious" version?No. Only beings with a soul can become a demon. Now if a creature such as a Lich tore it's soul and placed it into things the object might fo strange things such as stay together in an impossible amount of heat.>Do demons prefer their "discorded" status, or would they rather be cured (whether that's possible or not)? It's both. Some demons are insane and some simply work with what they are while others actively kill people to try and "steal" their song even though its impossible.>What's their level of malevolence - just crazy, mischievous, nasty, homicidal, genocidal, omnicidal? Are they persons or howling madness?Like above, both. Each failed tune is different and ranges from small to colossal.

>>53990918I'd also add that reading Evans-Pritchard's works about the Nuer people, specifically 'The Nuer: A Description of the Modes of Livelihood and Political Institutions of a Nilotic People' can also offer an interesting take on a monotheistic religion, though slightly unfitting to what OP asks, as the Nuer's monotheistic religion, though it has nothing to do with Abrahamic religions, still shares similarities and parallels in its philosophy and attitude with the Old Testament.

>>53997487>I don't get this one. Please elaborate.Not him, but I think he is asking if you can go "up" the divine hierarchy, or if you always have to stay on the same level/fall even lower.You yourself mentioned that they can be re-sung as a plant, or an animal, or just a lesser demon.The question I think was if you can actually be re-sung as a higher demon, or even as something greater than that - like becoming a human again?The odd thing about your proposition seems to be that your future is determined by Kavara's capability to be in-or-out of tune, which seems to remove all personal agency from your existence. Which is bleak at least.

>>53990918>manichaeism is not quite monotheistic (though it's close), but it literally reads like a fantasy novel so it's good inspiration anyway.That is because Manicheism is pretty close to gnostic heresies, and gnosticism has been quite popular subject of fantasy fiction. Hell, Tolkien himself was quite fascinated by the subject, as well as people like Jung (who is in many ways a father of modern myth interpretation, on which a lot of fantasy is based too) or even Borges consistently drew inspiration from it.That is not even MENTIONING people like Kirkbride.

Essentially, Abrahamic monotheism started out as pantheism. If you look up the ancient near east religions, a lot of them have gods with familiar names to Christianity, notably El/Elyon, which is found in a lot of place names (Bethel - "house of God") and people names (Michael, Elijah, etc). The tribes from these times would have like a patron deity for their tribes, and they'd war with each other and die off. The Babylonians only took slaves from one tribe - the tribe who worshipped El, and so he ended up surviving. It makes a few things make more sense too. These ancient gods tended to be a lot more temperamental, which is why God gets angrier in the old testament before he becomes father of all. Ba'al was also from that same pantheon, and when the Israelites felt abandoned by El, they turned to Ba'al, as they already /believed/ in him, they just didn't focus on him. Imagine if you felt like God was being annoying so converted to Islam. It's too much of a jump. They also had a belief that knowing the name of a God gave you power over them, and when God was asked his name, he said "Yhwh", which means "I am what I am" or "I'll be what I need to be".

Then it got knocked about and the kinks got fixed and it became Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

I guess you could do the same process, but with another pantheon perhaps? Maybe the God isn't the one and only because he's always been that way, but the other gods have died out? Would be interesting if the one last God didn't have omnipotence but instead retained his limited control. Like if Thor was the only God left, and all he could control was thunder n shit. Maybe the Israelites worshipped Baal and go from there?

>>53997661This is half-true.So first all all, those "lot of ancient east religions" have a common name, they are known as the Canaanite religions, as they were worshiped by the Canaanite people, on old semitic population in the region. We even know what the "El" words means: it means "high", or "highest", less literally "highest being" and only indirectly meaning "God". That is why Bethel means more precisely "the house for the highest (being) translating to "house of god". The names like "Michael" means "who is the highest (being)?" - it's not a statement, more like correctly (if less literally) translated as "nobody compares to god".

El (or Elohim - which curiously enough is a plural of El) and it's variations have most commonly however been associated with the position of the highest of the Gods within Canaanite pantheons, a presumably solar diety sometimes also known as Elyon. And we even know something more: We know that Old Testament DIRECTLY refers other Canaanite myths, meaning that the two were strongly interconnected.Most clear example is the reference to the story of Attar a morning-star god, a lesser diety that in Canaanite tradition attempted to challenge Elyon and out-shine him, but utterly failed and was punished for his hubris. We know this story being part of Torah through both Ezechiel 28 and Isaiah 14, who both compare two different presumably real human kings to a "A Morning Star" and which later have been also interpreted as depictions of the story of the Devil himself. Both of these particular verses actually clearly presume the audience being aware of the myth of Attan/The Morning Star, meaning that they assume their audience is familiar with the Canaanite mythology.

What we don't really know is the relationship between Canaanite Elyon and Jewish Elohim though. We don't know if Elohim emergent as an "evolution" or Elyon, or if it was a separate cult that just adopted the nomenclature.

>>53997871>>53997661>>53997871Oh and by the way, the whole story of Attan, The Morning Star (which is actually a pretty intuitive story, because it basically just humanizes regular celestial event, the Morning Star growing in brightness for a while before dissapearing in front of the rising sun) translated into Old Testament and then interpreted as a story of Devils hubris is how we got - thousands of years later - the idea of Lucifer.Because really, Lucifer means just "Morning Star" in Latin. Nothing more, nothing else: it's just that. It was associated with the image of devil through literal translations of Ezechiel (note the El in Ezechiel, the name actually means "The God Grows Stronger") and Izaiah (interestingly enough, the "iah" in "Izaiah is the same root as Yah in Yahwe and the whole name means "Jewish-God is salvation") where the respective people are slandered by being compared to Morning Stars: Lucifers.

Funny thing is that a different part of New Testament (I think it's the Revelation of Saint John, but I'm not sure) uses the word "Lucifer" to refer to Jesus Christ, which caused quite some confusion at one point. That is because the author of that part of New Testament was not raised in Canaanite-influenced mindset and did not associate Morning Star with negativity and implications of hubris and failure, thus deemed it acceptable to associate it with Jesus.

>>53998340Actually, a little later the same Old Testament paterntly stated that it's OK to slaughter anyone who actually recognizes the existence of a different God than the Only God. So it's not that simple.

Basically take any other god that isn't Zeus, Odin, Abrahamic God, etc, and make him the creator, king/queen of everything.

Example: If you take something like Dyonisus and make him the Supreme God you can have a mythology where the universe was created so the supreme god coul experience infinite sensations and pleasures, and even pains.

You can have an Allmother, something like Isis a supreme femenine deity that in fact, can only create, and can only choose to punish, never to destroy, and receives everyone in the afterlife with love. Everything is born within her and she is within everything.

Also you can have something like a deistic god. A sun god that just shines. Doesn't have a sex or a personality. Is just a force that fills everything with light and good but is indifferent to prayers.

>>53998607There isn't that much more to this that I know about, outside of the fact that the history of Lucifer then later on got into a pretty interesting spin because the whole association with Devil and the concept of a Morning Star lead to false association with Gnosticism.

The whole gnostic associations of Lucifer are partially caused by the fact that the Greek word for Morning Star is heōsphoros, which means "bringer of light". This lead to some interesting but largely arbitrary sets of associations, resulting in a an apocryphical theory describing Lucifer as "the brightest of Gods Angels", and through further mental gymnastics to a story in which it was Lucifer that "brought humans the light of knowledge" and was punished for that: creating an a somewhat strange image of a "unjust punishment" and certain degree of sympathy for the character. A big role in this was played by Milton's Paradise Lost, a story that really likes to humanize Lucifer and make him sound almost like a good guy.

Now, the story of Lucifer being "the one who brought people Knowledge (from the tree, because Lucifer = Devil) and was punished for it bought well into the whole Gnostic ordeal in which the Biblical God is actually a lesser, malevolent diety that imprisoned humans (who are really just a shards of the real god) in this false, evil material world: resulting in neo-gnostic movement that worshiped Lucifer as the only true God's servant, attempting to make people aware of their trap and lead them away from worshiping the false malevolent Biblical God: a popular narrative then particularly spread in 19th century North America as part of an anti-semitic campaign.

All of this associations, though, are ahistorical. Actual Gnostism never worked with the idea of Lucifer (actually, it was Zoe, also known as Eve, who brought the light of knowledge to humans in old Gnostic texts). Association of Lucifer with Gnosis is a 19th century romantic invention. However, it works remarkably well.

>single deity isn't almighty >single deity doesn't enforce a strict moral codex, instead there are only a few liturgic rules like which powders to use for a ritual >demons are enemies the deity can't just smite >demons and other entities can be more powerful >maybe people worship demons and work for them in exchange for their dream afterlife >the deity can be killed by a mortal champion that then takes it place

>>53998652The valar weren't exactly made with intent. Illuvatar just sort of thought them up one day then taught them how to sing, because that's just what you do in the void before creation I guess. Melkor was just the little shit that thought he could sing a better song, but didn't realize he was just playing into the greater themes. Maybe it's some intrinsic law of creation that a dickbag needs to be around for anything to get done. Maybe a world of turmoil and conflict is just inherently better. You know how gods are with their mysterious ways. Ultimately it really just reads like a story about a petulant son thinking he knows better than daddy. All metaphorical or something.

>>53997661>I guess you could do the same process, but with another pantheon perhaps? Maybe the God isn't the one and only because he's always been that way, but the other gods have died out?>>53974819>Wholly believable, especially if he's some sort of dark god and there's some myth about how it rose to power by devouring all that opposed him or some such

>>53990655God exists in a state that's hard for people to directly wrap their heads around, but has a number of reflections radiating outward. But like any reflection, it really only captures one side of what it reflects. These are like differing interpretations of God, given their own authority and power, but not the true God. They favor different ideals or aspects of God.

This splits religious beliefs along the lines of which aspect they choose to approach God from. They technically all seek the same God, but their practices can be wildly different as a result.

>>53995693I would prefer a god of war and revenge. I would totally follow a religion that told me to conquer an arbitrary strip of land because it is my god given land and then exterminate everyone living there.

>>54000478And accordingly, each of these reflected aspects has its own reflected aspects of sort, making up its own individual divine court. And each of these may have yet another set of reflections. Each step down, and things stray yet further from the perfect ideal at the center. Somewhere along this line is the mortal world.

>>53998340It's more complex than that. The text has clearly been rewritten to never explicitly recognize the existence of other gods, even though certain segments heavily implies that there are, or that the Jewish people once worshiped, other gods besides Yahweh.

>>53998652Melkor's evil served as something for the forces of good to overcome and eventually prove themselves to be superior over. His sin was his hubris in thinking that he could outsmart Ilúvatar and not realizing how his actions only served to further His plans.